Hi - I stumbled across your blog this afternoon - I just wanted to make a quick comment regarding the McDonalds lawsuit. If you actually read the opinion (as I have) and know the facts of the case without jumping to conclusions based on what you have heard on the radio station or from friends (or however else this story passes from one individual to another), you'd know that 1. the woman's claim DID actually have merit, and 2. she did not end up actually getting more than a paltry amount of recovery from the fast food chain (rather than the millions Americans assume she 'won'). I dont mean to come across as rude or bitchy, but as a lawyer myself, I have a problem with people assuming things such as this, and going so far as to joke that an elderly woman with 2nd degree burns should be kicked by a giant shoe.
Thank you.
and then my word for word response:
thanks for the comment, and assuming everything you said is true, i apologize for not having done my due diligence. and again, my shoe comment is a sarcastic joke, and isn't meant, moreover, if i knew it was an old woman, i wouldn't have said it.
thanks for stopping by. i apologize that you don't see me at my "true form," if you will. i rarely venture into political matters because i'm as deft at politics as an elephant is at shuttle weaving.
i just went and read about the case, and i didn't know she was so old and that the damage done to her was so extensive. nevertheless, there are a couple of things that make you sort of stare into dead air like the proverbial deer and headlights.
first, her lawyer sued because of defective merchandise. no. again, coffee's meant to be hot, and when you try to pry open a lid by placing it between your legs, that's an error of extremely poor judgment, and in no way the company's fault.
second, out of simple human compassion, when mcdonald's learned what happened, they should have said, "hey, we're a huge company, and this lady's old. let's do the gentlemanly thing and foot the doctor's bill." did they? no. should they have? yes.
third. instead they offer her 800 bucks as if that will put a dent in her 11,000 dollar skin graft job. don't be a dick mcdonalds. don't even insult a person like that. if you know a person's need, and you know you can meet a need, meet it.
next, she takes it to court. again, i don't think she has a legal reason to sue, especially since the lawyer's reason is imaginary. nevertheless, the lawyer seeks an out of court settlement, which mcdonald's doesn't take. even from the mouth of Jesus, if someone seeks to settle out of court, DO IT.
lastly, her initial lawsuit was for 11k, the cost of the operations. that's fair. the amount settled on by the court was some 640k, almost 66 times that of the initial claim. however, the two parties settled on an undisclosed amount less than 600k. so, we can assume it was the initial amount, or something in between. if it was anything more than twice the initial amount (to cover legal fees etc.), i think we've crossed the border into "ridiculous" territory.
all this isn't to say that, now that i know the truth, i don't empathize with the woman. i just don't think that the whole lawsuit route was the best one. mostly, when mcdonalds as a whole (whoever that includes, whatever that means), they just shouldn't have been such douche bags. man was that a long response.
4 comments:
The lawyer person should have said the woman's anger was warranted, not everything else.
According to your presentation of the facts, dude, I don't think our "skewed" popular view of the case is all that off-target. And what are we supposed to know more than that?
We know that immediately after this happened we all had a warning label on our coffee cups saying that it "may be hot". Yeah, because warning labels prevent a lot of bad things. Warning labels keep children from smoking, people from not wearing their seat belts, people consuming food they're allergic to, and people from stepping out into the path of a moving car, right? Oh...er... not always.
We don't need warning labels, we need common sense.
We don't need warning labels, we need common sense.
and that's been my case.
Wow, I really appreciate the time you spent looking into my comments. I agree with a lot of what you discussed - perhaps the lawsuit wasnt the best route, and perhaps the "may be hot" warning label is ridiculous. However, a quick note to t.d., the label is not there to warn us - in reality, it is there to keep McDonalds from being sued again. However, the coffee that was served to the woman was not simply hot (although I DO agree that her actions regarding the opening of said coffee was ridiculous) but WELL beyond the temperature recommended for fast food restaurants (basically, a short step below boiling).
Anyway, sorry my first comment to your blog was what it was - you have really impressed me with your response though! Thank you. :) - Jillibean
P.S. Am I a "lawyer person?" I think I should put that on my business cards! ;)
jillian-
I'm not sure if you are a coffee drinker person, but I am. In fact my paychecks come my way through a coffee drinking place. With that said, I realize that McDonalds isn't always know for having the best coffee (although that's changing), but they do know how to make coffee. Coffee is brewed with water "just off" a boil. Here in Colorado that temperature is between 199-201 fahrenheit (at sea level it would be 212 fahrenheit). If a restaurant was to serve fresh coffee the beverage would be at a temp around seven to ten degrees lower than a boil.
I realize that this is a very high temperature to drink anything at, but that is the temperature needed to make coffee. I have worked for several coffee shops, including the Big Green Machine, and have never been told to wait for coffee to cool down before serving it to customers because "that's the law."
just my two cents.
Post a Comment